Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Cr. Revision No. 127 of 2016. Case: Brij Lal Thakur Vs Puran Chand. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCr. Revision No. 127 of 2016
Party NameBrij Lal Thakur Vs Puran Chand
CounselFor Appellant: Mr.C.S.Thakur, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Goverdhan, Advocate
JudgesMr. Sandeep Sharma, J
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure - Section 397; Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138
Judgement DateApril 17, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral)

  1. Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P, in Criminal Appeal No. 18-S/10 of 2015, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in complaint No. 40/3 of 2012, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith 9% simple interest per annum.

  2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the respondent(hereinafter referred to as the complainant), filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., alleging therein that in the month of November, 2011, accused requested him to advance loan of Rs.4,50,000/-in order to clear bank liability. Accordingly, complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 4, 50,000/- to the accused in the month of November, 2011. Complainant further alleged that on 18th March, 2012, he requested the accused to return the aforesaid amount but accused issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 4, 50,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Didag in order to discharge his liability. However, fact remains that on presentation, the cheque was dishonored on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Complainant on receipt of memo received from the bank, got issued legal notice to the accused calling upon him to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, but since the accused failed to make the payment good in terms of the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the appropriate Court of law.

  3. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per...

To continue reading

Request your trial